Date: Tue Mar 21 2000 - 07:56:38 EST
In a message dated 3/21/2000 7:51:18 AM Central Daylight Time,
Here's what I don't understand: (1) TOU QEOU appears in p46. The
witnesses listed by Metzger are, I believe, of later vintage. Now, if a
variant appears in a really early witness, what difference does it make
if it is not included in later witnesses? Doesn't the fact that it
appears so early prove its early existence, and diminish the importance
of its absence in later documents? In the case of 1 Cor. 2:14, I gather
that (unlike UBS3), UBS4 and NA27 include TOU QEOU without comment, but
what about other similar situations? (2) With reference to 1 Cor. 2:14,
Metzger indicates that the UBS3 committee considered the possibility that
TOU QEOU might have been added by copyists. But are there any witnesses
earlier than p46 that exclude it? If not, how can one make such a
Unfortunately corruption can creep into a textual tradition early as well as
late. For this reason it is necessary to check the distribution of a
particular reading. Does it appear in only one geographical area? What
about other documents in the same area? Do they have the same reading?
There are many factors to consider other than simply finding the earliest
attestation of a particular passage and following that.
Sorry for the brevity -- I need to run.
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:41:02 EDT